279 A.D. 674 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1951
Examinations to determine merit and fitness for appointments and promotions in the civil service of the State, as contemplated by the State Constitution (art. V, § 6), should be of such nature as will best test the candidates with respect to the qualities demanded by the positions to which they aspire. Insofar as possible, merit and fitness should be measured by objective standards, but determination of fitness for some positions, particularly those which require executive and intellectual ability and broad cultural learning, cannot always be based on objectivity solely. In such cases, the examinations may be subjective insofar as objectivity is impracticable or impossible, and to the extent that it is subjective the risk that the examiners themselves arc fit to examine must be accepted. (See Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N. Y. 367, and Matter of Bridgman v. Kern, 257 App. Div. 420, affd. 282 N. Y. 375.) In our opinion, the examination under review did not do violence to the principles above mentioned, and there was reasonable basis for application of the require
